Happy Independence Day, everyone. We are taking a day off to enjoy the weather, good food, excellent company, and our freedom. We'll be back to our regular schedule tomorrow. This July 4 is made all the more important in light of the recent decision in Brown v. EMA. While a great victory was won on behalf of free speech. The door is still open and the wolf is lying in wait.

Our liberties and our freedoms mean everything. We should never forget the sacrifices made on behalf of those freedoms and we should always be vigilant, never be complacent, and always ready to stand up for what is right and just.

Comments

I don't think Brown vs EMA was a great victory on behalf of free speech. It was a great loss for the principles of Federalism. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that individual states have to allow minors to buy videogames at all. I think that wasn't a very good law in California, but it was perfectly Constitutional, and it was passed by the duly elected representatives of the people. It is none of the business of unelected judges to overturn such a law. The right way to get it overturned would be to elect canidates who would overturn it through the legislative process.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When the SCOTUS makes a Federal decision on the Constitution, in covers all the states (Georgia tried that with the Freedom of Religion back in 1939 because the 1rst Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law..." but that only ended in the SOCAS, bringing it down from Fedral to State level).

Now cybernatography definitely qualifies under the 1rst Amendment (as I have said repeatedly).

Brown v. EMA wasn't just about selling games to minors. It was also about a state trying to treat one form of free speech differently than others, on the basis that the speech in question is "dangerous", "new", and "more interactive than the others".

Article III gives the Supreme Court(and the courts below them) judicial review of all laws passed by the US Congress(and affirmed through Marbury v. Madison), and through the Fourteenth Amendment, all laws passed by the states, thus making it the business of the "unelected judges" to overturn a law if it's found to be unconstitutional.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Edit: The Ninth Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Meaning that just because a right is not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution doesn't mean that the right in question doesn't exist.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Note: for Constitutional purposes, corporations like Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, etc. are considered to be people, as a corporation is a collective of persons.)

To summarize: California passed a law abridging the freedom of speech; the video game industry petitioned the Government for a redress of grievances as the Judicial branch is part of the government; Federal district judge overturned the law as unconstitutional; California appealed to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; Ninth Circuit affirmed lower court ruling; California appealed to U.S. Supreme Court; SCOTUS affirmed Ninth Circuit ruling.

The representatives in the California State Legislature being elected by the majority of people in their districts is irrevalent. The Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Bottom line: California's law was never "perfectly Constitutional", and California lost. Deal with it.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Pelicans. Solidarity for the Saints = No retreat, no surrender. 2013 = Saints' revenge on the NFL. Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always.

hm, disdain for judges. Not believing that video games are speech protected by the first amendment. Now all we need is a false statement about how the MPAA is enforced by the rule of law and we might just get suspicios that ol' John Bruce is using a false identity to spread his lies again.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

The Supreme Court of the United States was established by the Constitution for the purpose of reviewing laws passed by the US government and with the passing of the 14th ammendment the state governments to check the constitutionality of the law.

It is part of the whole checks and balances aspect of our govenrment. Without the check from judges, govenrments would be free to pass any law they wanted with no possible reprieve from unjust laws.

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.

ZippyDSMlee: .....win8 hates any left over hidden install partitions from other version of windows....only waste 5 hours finding that out...its ahrder than you think keeping up with 4 or 5 HDDS......03/03/2015 - 4:44am

Matthew Wilson: I am going to pax east, any games you guys want me to check out?03/02/2015 - 11:23pm

ZippyDSMlee: No one remembers the days of Cinemagic and Cynergy eh? :P, meh even MGS is getting to film like....03/02/2015 - 8:44pm

MechaTama31: I was about to get all defensive about liking Metal Gear Solid, but then I saw that he was talking about "cinematic" as a euphemism for "crappy framerate".03/02/2015 - 8:29pm

prh99: Just replace cinematic with the appropriate synonym for poo and you'll have gist of any press release.03/02/2015 - 5:34pm

Monte: Though from a business side, i would agree with the article. While it would be smarter for developers to slow down, you can't expect EA, Activision or ubisoft to do something like that. Nintnedo's gotta get the third party back.02/28/2015 - 4:36pm

Monte: Though it does also help that nintendo's more colorful style is a lot less reliant on graphics than more realistic games. Wind Waker is over 10 years old and still looks good for its age.02/28/2015 - 4:33pm

Monte: With the Wii, nintnedo had the right idea. Hold back on shiny graphics and focus on the gameplay experience. Unfortunatly everyone else keeps pushing for newer graphics and it matters less and less each generation. I can barely notice the difference02/28/2015 - 4:29pm

Monte: ON third party developers; i kinda think they should slow down to nintendo's pace. They bemoan the rising costs of AAA gaming, but then constantly push for the best graphics which is makes up a lot of those costs. Be easier to afford if they held back02/28/2015 - 4:27pm

Matthew Wilson: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/02/28/the-world-is-nintendos-if-only-theyd-take-it/ I think this is a interesting op-ed, but yeah it kind of is stating the obvious.02/28/2015 - 2:52pm